4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Mykolayiv, Ukraine.
5.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Korabelnyy District Court of Mykolayiv (“the Korabelnyy Court”) against Mr L., her neighbour, disputing his right to use a plot of land. On 15 January 1999 Mr L. lodged a counterclaim, alleging that he was so entitled.
6.  On 11 January 2000 the Korabelnyy Court dismissed the applicant's claim and upheld Mr L.'s counterclaim.
7.  On 16 March 2000 the Korabelnyy Court rendered an additional judgment, requiring Mr L. to move the fence between his and the applicant's land and ordering the applicant to pay Mr L. litigation expenses incurred by the latter.
8.  On 12 April 2000 the Mykolayiv Regional Court[1] (“the Regional Court”[) upheld the above ]judgments with slight amendments and they became final.  In July 2000 they were enforced in full.
9.  On 6 October 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments of 11 January and 16 March and the ruling of 12 April 2000, following an objection (протест) by the Acting President of the Regional Court and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The Presidium found that the courts had erred in their application of the law and had not sufficiently explored the relevant evidence.
10.  On 14 August 2002 the Korabelnyy Court terminated the proceedings because Mr L. had died, leaving no heirs interested in succeeding him in the proceedings.
11.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant appealed against this decision and requested leave to appeal out of time, referring to the Korabelnyy Court's failure to inform her about the decision of 14 August 2002 in due time.
12.  On 3 December 2002 the Korabelnyy Court rejected the applicant's request. The applicant appealed.
13.  On 27 February 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 3 December 2002, having found, in particular, that the Korabelnyy Court had failed to pronounce the decision of 14 August 2002 publicly and to inform the applicant about it in due course.
14.  On 3 April 2003 the Regional Court allowed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 14 August 2002. It remitted the case for fresh consideration, having found that the Korabelnyy Court had failed to take steps to identify successors to Mr L.
15.  On 3 July 2003 the Korabelnyy Court admitted Mrs L.L., Mrs K.L., Mrs A.O. and Mrs K.I. to the proceedings as Mr L.'s successors.
16.  On 1 September 2003 the Korabelnyy Court ruled that Mrs A.O. be questioned and some relevant court documents be served on her. Since Mrs A.O. was residing in the town of Novorossiysk, Russia, the court requested the Novorossiysk Court to carry out the above actions. By the same ruling, the court suspended the domestic proceedings. On 22 October 2003 the request was transmitted to the Mykolayiv Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice. On an unspecified date in October 2003 it was transmitted to the Russian authorities.
17.  On 22 December 2003, following the applicant's request, the Korabelnyy Court attached the disputed plot of land, having prohibited, in particular, its division and disposal, including the preparation of any relevant documents, until the resolution of the dispute. Mr L.'s successors appealed. On 14 January 2004 the Korabelnyy Court left their appeal without examination. On an unspecified date in January 2004 the court renewed the time-limit for appealing against the ruling of 22 December 2003. On 12 February 2004 the Korabelnyy Court transmitted the case to the Regional Court. On 1 March 2003 the latter scheduled a hearing for 12 March 2003.
18.  On 2 March 2003 the Korabelnyy Court received a reply from the Novorossiysk Court.
19.  On 12 March 2004 the Regional Court amended the ruling of 22 December 2003, reducing the scope of the restrictions imposed on the users of the plot.
20.  On 8 April 2004 Mr L.'s successors appealed in cassation against the rulings of 22 December 2003 and 12 March 2004. On 15 June 2006 the Supreme Court rejected their appeal in cassation.
21.  On 27 December 2006 the Korabelnyy Court partly allowed the applicant's claim, ordered Mr L.'s successors to move the fence between the plots and dismissed the counterclaim.
22.  On 26 March 2007 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged by Mr L.'s successors.
23.  On 20 April 2007 Mr L.'s successors lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court against the judgment of 27 December 2006 and the ruling of 26 March 2007.
24.  On 23 May 2007 the Korabelnyy District Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings.
25.  On 7 June 2007 the Korabelnyy Court rectified the judgment of 27 December 2006. On 30 January 2008 the Regional Court quashed the ruling of 7 June 2007.
26.  In the period from 23 May 2007 to January 2009 Mr L.'s successors sought suspension of the enforcement proceedings, challenged the Bailiffs' actions, sought interpretation of the judgment of 27 December 2006 and sought an additional judgment on numerous occasions.
27.  Following the applicant's request of 21 May 2008, on 20 June 2008 the Korabelnyy Court ruled to reverse the execution of the judgments of 11 January 2000 and 16 March 2000 which had been enforced in July 2000. The ruling of 20 June 2008 was upheld by the Regional Court on 16 October 2008.
28. In September 2008 the Korabelnyy District Bailiffs' Service lodged a request with the Korabelnyy Court seeking interpretation of the operative part of the judgment of 27 December 2006. Mr L.'s successors lodged a request with the same court seeking an additional judgment and interpretation of the same judgment. On 4 November 2008 the court dismissed these requests.
29.  On 29 January 2009 the Regional Court quashed the ruling of 4 November 2009 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.
30.  The parties did not inform the Court about the outcome of the cassation appeal lodged by Mr L.'s successors on 20 April 2007.